Neuroethics in Educational Technology: Keeping the Brain in Mind When Developing Frameworks for Ethical Decision-Making

  • Thomas D. Parsons
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)


Cyberlearning involves the convergence of psychology, education, learning technologies, computer science, engineering, and information science. Given the similar rate of advances in the educational neuroscience over the past couple decades, there is a growing interest in interaction between neuroscience and education. While cyberlearning has called attention to the stimulating potential that these new technologies (and the research behind them) have to offer, less emphasis has been placed upon the moral and ethical issues that may result from the widespread use of the learning technologies and neuroscience. This chapter aims to offer a first attempt at discussing some of the ethical issues inherent in brain-based cyberlearning research and practice.


Ethics Cyberlearning Neuroethics Brain-based cyberpsychology Neuroscience 


  1. Allied Control Council. (1949). Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, J. W., Mehlman, M. J., Rubin, D. B., & Kodish, E. (2009). Making all the children above average: Ethical and regulatory concerns for pediatricians in pediatric enhancement research. Clinical Pediatrics, 48(5), 472–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohil, C. J., Alicea, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 752–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christman, J. (2004). Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies, 117(1), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. J. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clausen, J., & Levy, N. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Farah, M. J. (2012). Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farah, M. J., Illes, J., Cook-Deegan, R., Gardner, H., Kandel, E., King, P., et al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(5), 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 313–399). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Forlini, C., Gauthier, S., & Racine, E. (2013). Should physicians prescribe cognitive enhancers to healthy individuals? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 185(12), 1047–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 17(16), R724–R732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaucher, N., Payot, A., & Racine, E. (2013). Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: Is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatrica, 102(12), 1118–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graf, W. D., Nagel, S. K., Epstein, L. G., Miller, G., Nass, R., & Larriviere, D. (2013). Pediatric neuroenhancement Ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology, 80(13), 1251–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heersmink, R. (2017). Extended mind and cognitive enhancement: Moral aspects of cognitive artifacts. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heersmink, R., & Carter, J. A. (2017). The philosophy of memory technologies: Metaphysics, knowledge, and values. Memory Studies.
  19. Howard-Jones, P. (2010). Introducing neuroeducational research: Neuroscience, education and the brain from contexts to practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Illes, J. (2006). Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Illes, J. (Ed.). (2017). Neuroethics: Anticipating the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2008). The smoke around mirror neurons: Goals as sociocultural and emotional organizers of perception and action in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(2), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Singh, V. (2011). Perspectives from social and affective neuroscience on the design of digital learning technologies. In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 233–241). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Juengst, E. (1998). What does enhancement mean? In E. Parens (Ed.), Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications (pp. 29–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kane, R. L., & Parsons, T. D. (Eds.). (2017). The role of technology in clinical neuropsychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klopfer, E., Perry, J., Squire, K., Jan, M. F., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005, May). Mystery at the museum: a collaborative game for museum education. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 316–320). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Lalancette, H., & Campbell, S. R. (2012). Educational neuroscience: Neuroethical considerations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(1), 37–52.Google Scholar
  29. Levy, N. (2007a). Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. American Journal of Bioethics, 7(9), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levy, N. (2007b). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21th century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levy, N. (2011). Neuroethics and the extended mind. In J. Illes & B. J. Sahakian (Eds.), Oxford handbook of neuroethics (pp. 285–294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mackenzie, C. (2010). Imagining oneself otherwise. In C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self (pp. 124–150). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Maher, B. (2008). Poll results: Look who’s doping: In January, Nature launched an informal survey into readers’ use of cognition-enhancing drugs. Brendan Maher has waded through the results and found large-scale use and a mix of attitudes towards the drugs. Nature, 452(7188), 674–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meshi, D., Tamir, D. I., & Heekeren, H. R. (2015). The emerging neuroscience of social media. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell, J. P. (2008). Contributions of functional neuroimaging to the study of social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Montag, C., & Reuter, M. (Eds.). (2017). Internet addiction: Neuroscientific approaches and therapeutical implications including smartphone addiction. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Montfort, D. B., & Brown, S. (2013). What do we mean by cyberlearning: Characterizing a socially constructed definition with experts and practitioners. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mystery at the Museum. (2003). [Computer software]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Teacher Education Program & The Education Arcade. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from
  39. Nagel, S. K., Hrincu, V., & Reiner, P. B. (2016, May 13–14). Algorithm anxiety— do decision- making algorithms pose a threat to autonomy? Presented at 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  40. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research-the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Nedelsky, J. (1989). Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 1(1), 5.Google Scholar
  42. Office for Human Research Protections [OHRP]. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from
  43. Parens, E. (Ed.). (2000). Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Parsons, T. D. (2015). Virtual reality for enhanced ecological validity and experimental control in the clinical, affective, and social neurosciences. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parsons, T. D. (2016). Clinical neuropsychology and technology: What’s new and how we can use it. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parsons, T. D. (2017). Cyberpsychology and the brain: The interaction of neuroscience and affective computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parsons, T.D., Gaggioli, A., & Riva, G. (2017). Virtual environments in social neuroscience. Brain Sciences, 7(42), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parsons, T. D., Riva, G., Parsons, S., Mantovani, F., Newbutt, N., Lin, L., et al. (2017). Virtual reality in pediatric psychology: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. Pediatrics, 140, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parsons, T. D., Rizzo, A. A., Rogers, S. A., & York, P. (2009). Virtual reality in pediatric rehabilitation: A review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12, 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poulin, C. (2001). Medical and nonmedical stimulant use among adolescents: From sanctioned to unsanctioned use. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165(8), 1039–1044.Google Scholar
  51. Racine, E., & Aspler, J. (Eds.). (2017). Debates about neuroethics: Perspectives on its development, focus, and future. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Racine, E., & Illes, J. (2008). Neuroethics. In P. Singer & A. Viens (Eds.), Cambridge textbook of bioethics (pp. 495–504). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reiner, P. B., & Nagel, S. K. (2017). Technologies of the extended mind: Defining the issues. In J. Illes & S. Hossain (Eds.), Neuroethics: Anticipating the future (pp. 108–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Singh, I., & Kelleher, K. J. (2010). Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smart, P. R. (2012). The web-extended mind. Metaphilosophy, 43(4), 446–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spector, J. M. (2005). Innovations in instructional technology: An introduction to this volume. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. xxxi–xxxvi). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Spector, J. M. (2015). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spector, J. M. (2016). Ethics in educational technology: Towards a framework for ethical decision making in and for the discipline. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 1003–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stein, Z., & Fischer, K. W. (2011). Directions for mind, brain, and education: Methods, models, and morality. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Uddin, L. Q., Iacoboni, M., Lange, C., & Keenan, J. P. (2007). The self and social cognition: The role of cortical midline structures and mirror neurons. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Persuasive technology and moral responsibility toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. Persuasive, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
  64. Verbeek, P.-P. (2009). Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: The blurring boundaries between human and technology. NanoEthics, 3(3), 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilens, T. E., Adler, L. A., Adams, J., Sgambati, S., Rotrosen, J., Sawtelle, R., et al. (2008). Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for ADHD: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. World Medical Association. (1964). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Ferney-Voltaire: World Medical Association.Google Scholar
  67. Yeaman, A. R. J. (2016). Competence and circumstance. TechTrends, 60, 195–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information, University of North Texas, Computational Neuropsychology and SimulationDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations